I have thought about that too, but then I think: What is the point of confession? Confessing ones sins to a priest has always been an important part of Christian teaching and praxis in the East and the West, and it has always been quite soundly understood that confession is for the absolution of sins. It can't be done just by sincerely being repentant. Repentance, of course, is the first step, but to be 'cleared' of our sins, so to speak, we need confession.

Actually, the form, frequency and understanding of the mystery of confession was varying and changing throughout the centuries and places. The fact that today in the Orthodox Church there are different approaches to it, is due to various historical circumstances, etc. Are all of these approaches equally (a) beneficial, and (b) valid? Well, I think that as for (a): it depends (probably one practice may be very beneficial for one person, while not so much for someone else), and as for (b): yes, if a given practice is blessed by the bishop in whose diocese it takes place.

Perhaps that is so. I'm not trying to convert Orthodox or change their beliefs. However, I need regular confession. I need it.

Do you receive a face-to-face confession or any confession? Is one or the other more important to you? (if this isn't to personal)

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.

Though that is mistake many people who are unfamiliar make (mostly children), they must not go to church, because I've always seen it explained multiple times when a feast of Mary is around. And that's if you only go to Mass.

I am not trying to compare myself to the saints, but many saints struggled with scruples (as I am sure you are quite familiar with). When reading many biographies on Francis of Assisi (my favorite was "The Perfect Joy of St. Francis" written by Felix Timmermans, which I read probably 5 times in a two year period) I would often giggle at some of the struggles of Francis and his scruples; it can't be denied that he truly approached Christ as a child. And of course Teresa of Avila went through a long duration where she lost all faith in God as a Carmelite (I only point this out since I was aware of some of my scruples and did discuss them with my Catholic FOC).However, unlike these two, I live in a different time. I live in an age where freedom of (and from) religion and freedom of thought are protected. I used these freedoms to encounter new ideas (some philosophical and religous, others not) and I went through my "dark night of the soul", as John of the Cross would put it, and exited not as a stronger Christian but as a disbeliever. I now see the light, not in Christianity, but in the ideals of the philosophies of the philosophers of the European Enlightenment.

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.

I think you're referring to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was worded to leave open the possibility that she might not have died, although it is strongly believed by most Catholics that she did. The point of the doctrine is that she went straight to Heaven.

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.

That hasn't been my experience with Catholics. Most of them know what the church teaches. It's irrelevant, though - there will always be poorly catechized Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. I've met Orthodox Christians who believe in toll houses.

Do you receive a face-to-face confession or any confession? Is one or the other more important to you? (if this isn't to personal)

I simply go into the confessional and sit down behind the screen. It's not face-to-face. The only time I ever made a confession to a priest face-to-face was when I was received into Orthodoxy. The priest asked me to make my confession with other people in the room. I was very uncomfortable with that and yet the priest didn't seem to mind. On Easter Saturday the priest was hearing confessions in front of the iconostasis even though there were people sitting in the front pews, listening to other people's confessions.

I much prefer the Catholic method. I think that privacy is absolutely essential in confession. In Catholicism, the priest takes seriously his commitment to never utter a word of someone else's confession outside the confessional booth. In Orthodoxy, this doesn't seem to be the case. The Orthodox priest who heard by confession made a direct reference to what I had told him, in front of a large group of people.

I am not trying to compare myself to the saints, but many saints struggled with scruples (as I am sure you are quite familiar with). When reading many biographies on Francis of Assisi (my favorite was "The Perfect Joy of St. Francis" written by Felix Timmermans, which I read probably 5 times in a two year period) I would often giggle at some of the struggles of Francis and his scruples; it can't be denied that he truly approached Christ as a child. And of course Teresa of Avila went through a long duration where she lost all faith in God as a Carmelite (I only point this out since I was aware of some of my scruples and did discuss them with my Catholic FOC).However, unlike these two, I live in a different time. I live in an age where freedom of (and from) religion and freedom of thought are protected. I used these freedoms to encounter new ideas (some philosophical and religous, others not) and I went through my "dark night of the soul", as John of the Cross would put it, and exited not as a stronger Christian but as a disbeliever. I now see the light, not in Christianity, but in the ideals of the philosophies of the philosophers of the European Enlightenment.

Interesting. I went through a perioud of struggle with my faith as well when I was in college. My exposure (at a secular university) to the ideas of unbelievers only demonstrated to me how shallow, self contradictory, and poorly conceived are the doctrines of the unbelievers. Thus, I came out of this struggle, with a much stronger faith in God.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I think you're referring to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. . .

Actually, my comment applies to both. What is, for us Orthodox, problematic in Ineffabilis Deus? The ambiguous phrases such as "free from all stain of original sin" and "entirely free from . . . all corruption of body, soul and mind".

I simply go into the confessional and sit down behind the screen. It's not face-to-face. The only time I ever made a confession to a priest face-to-face was when I was received into Orthodoxy. The priest asked me to make my confession with other people in the room. I was very uncomfortable with that and yet the priest didn't seem to mind. On Easter Saturday the priest was hearing confessions in front of the iconostasis even though there were people sitting in the front pews, listening to other people's confessions.

I much prefer the Catholic method. I think that privacy is absolutely essential in confession. In Catholicism, the priest takes seriously his commitment to never utter a word of someone else's confession outside the confessional booth. In Orthodoxy, this doesn't seem to be the case. The Orthodox priest who heard by confession made a direct reference to what I had told him, in front of a large group of people.

First of all, we have to remember that during the first centuries of Christianity, it was the norm to have confession with other people listening. Secondly, why are you making such unfair generalizations basing them upon your limited experience? I used to be a Catholic and in my former parish there was (and, as far as I know, still is) a very limited privacy of confession, while in my current parish there is full intimacy (the same applies to all the Orthodox parishes and monasteries I have visited so far).

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.

That hasn't been my experience with Catholics. Most of them know what the church teaches. It's irrelevant, though - there will always be poorly catechized Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. I've met Orthodox Christians who believe in toll houses.

So what? I can't see any link. The belief in toll houses is a theologumen, not a misconception about an existing dogma.

The Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states.

Catholic theology extends this to say that 'therefore, she must also have been free of original sin.' Orthodox don't believe in original sin. So what? They still believe that Mary was sinless for her entire life. That's what the Immaculate Conception is about.

Are you serious here? This shows a grave misunderstanding both of the IC and the Orthodox perspective on it. The IC states that Mary was born without the ancestral curse. We believe in the ancestral curse, and hold that Mary was conceived with it.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

However, they believe that from her conception she was free of sin, including original sin.

If by "original sin" you simply mean the ancestral curse, that is the spiritual death we all inherit as a loss of original holiness, then we certainly believe in original sin and uphold that Mary was conceived with it.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

The problem is we believe that Mary was conceived with the ancestral curse and you do not.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Vast majority of Catholics I meet, think that the dogma of the IC of the BVM says that Christ was conceived without means of sexual intercourse.

LOL

Yeah, that much is true.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

I was raised Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist at the same time. I was baptized Roman Catholic in secret by my mother as my Southern Baptist father refused to allow this, even though promising my mother that she could raise any children as Roman Catholic if or when they came.

My parents divorced when I was 2 years old, and after that my father left town, but his parents lived in town and would take us to their Southern Baptist church when my mother worked on the weekends. When my older sister was about 6 years old, she decided she wanted a "believer's baptism" and to give her life to Jesus according to the ritual forms of that sect, and my mother was shocked that my grandparents supported it, presumably because she was already baptized, although I don't know if they were or are aware of that fact, but I'm sure they would have rejected it as being "valid" in their framework.

Anyway, after that (when I was about 5) we started going to Roman Catholic Mass every weekend, as my mother could see that the mixed religious upbringing wasn't a good thing. So from ages 5 to about 13, I went to Mass weekly, and vaguely remember going to either Sunday school or some kind of catechism or something like that. I also remember that we watch the musical "Jesus Christ Superstar."

I really didn't understand too much, but I was a child, so what can you expect? I'm sure they did a great job, I was just pulled out at the wrong time.

At age 14 I had to go live with my dad for getting into a lot of trouble and ended up dedicating my life to Jesus in a personal way, with deep inner commitment, when I was 15 in the Southern Baptist Church.

Looking back on things, I can clearly see that I was an open book to their teaching. They had wonderful hearts and a great love for God, but at the same time they poisoned me against the Roman Catholic Church. I didn't know how I felt about it, and they managed to tell me how I felt about it.

Add on a decade of a million sects and theological considerations, a kind of despairing reluctant agnosticism for a couple of years, and then God brought me to Orthodoxy. (I'm skipping over this huge part of my life because of the focus of the thread with Roman Catholicism, and because I've mentioned it numerous times in other threads. This were my Protestant, Agnostic, Esoteric Whateverism, Metal/Occult/Theistic Satanism dabblings, etc. years)

The Orthodox Church and the books I have been reading since stumbling into it have really given me a deeper understanding of Apostolic Christianity. I even briefly considered "returning to Rome" (even though I had personally never "confirmed" my being there), I didn't try too hard because I bought into the Orthodox apologetics against Papal Infallibility, and I still don't think he has a rightful claim to universal jurisdiction. Since I couldn't admit that from the start, I didn't really even bother getting into filioque issues, purgatory, etc. But I did attend one traditional Latin Mass as well as a Ruthenian "Byzantine" Catholic Church, but never had a serious conversation with a priest over the issues. I had a sense of confirmation and resolution in my soul concerning where God had led me, and it was to my particular Orthodox parish community.

Orthodoxy has brought me so much closer to Christ and my life has been completely transformed beyond anything I could imagine. This is not at the expense of my Roman Catholic upbringing, and I really don't see myself as a Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy, because I never really understood it (which was NOT the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, I was just too young and it wasn't cultivated at home by my mother). I wasn't devout at any point, nor ever loving God in my heart in a real way.

From everything I have come to learn about Roman Catholicism and mainly the people and saints in their church, I feel nothing but gratitude for the foundation it provided for me. Those deep roots all came back at my first Orthodox liturgy. I knew the Creed (well, with a few extra words), I recognized vestments, an altar, consecration, etc. It all came flooding back to me in a wonderful way.

I am at peace with the Roman Catholic Church in my soul. I have some disagreements over the above mentioned issues which prevents my being a part of that communion based on my current understanding of things, but I hope and pray that there is validity in their sacraments, and I think anyone who deliberately wishes the contrary might be full of pride in their church and lacking compassion. Why wouldn't we want them to have a "valid" Eucharist?

Anyway, hopefully I will learn more about that part of my upbringing as the years progress. I plan to attend a SSPX church down the road from me at some point when I am not so "newly" illumined, with my priest's blessing of course, if I can get it. I am mainly interested in the liturgical exposure, so I plan to do the same with the various Oriental Non-Chalcedonian liturgies available in my city. At some point I want to read a few books to help my head and heart to understand Roman Catholic spirituality, so I want to read writings of John of the Cross, Thomas Merton's Seven-Story Mountain, and any other suggestions.

I love all of the Christians who truly believe in Christ, and hope that all the divisions will be set right in the world to come, by the Lord's great mercy and compassion. May He guide us all to salvation!

Please, there are a whole lot of threads dealing with the IC - could y'all talk about some of the other issues raised here? I'd especially like to find out from RC's who became EO if they miss receiving daily Eucharist. And the stuff about the differences in Confession interests me too.

Carry on!

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

but I hope and pray that there is validity in their sacraments, and I think anyone who deliberately wishes the contrary might be full of pride in their church and lacking compassion. Why wouldn't we want them to have a "valid" Eucharist?

I wish that they had a legitimate Eucharist, but I nonetheless confidently believe that they do not.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

but I hope and pray that there is validity in their sacraments, and I think anyone who deliberately wishes the contrary might be full of pride in their church and lacking compassion. Why wouldn't we want them to have a "valid" Eucharist?

I wish that they had a legitimate Eucharist, but I nonetheless confidently believe that they do not.

but I hope and pray that there is validity in their sacraments, and I think anyone who deliberately wishes the contrary might be full of pride in their church and lacking compassion. Why wouldn't we want them to have a "valid" Eucharist?

I wish that they had a legitimate Eucharist, but I nonetheless confidently believe that they do not.

Let us hope then that God is more 'gracious'.

I don't know about that.

For one thing, there is the perspective of Traditionalists on the Latin side who say the the Easterners have legitimate Sacraments but that they are heaping damnation upon themselves by partaking of them. That would be a possibility if they had a legitimate Eucharist. If that were the case, I would hope that they do not have a legitimate Eucharist.

Further, for a group outside of the Church to have legitimate Sacraments would be highly problematic ecclesiologically as it would divide the Body of Christ and render the unity of the Church redundant. That idea is just a mess and I don't hope for it to be true.

I certainly hope that God will have mercy upon those who are outside the Church and that somehow they may eventually be redeemed, but I don't really hope that legitimate Sacraments exist outside the Church.

What I meant when I said that I wish the Romanists had a legitimate Eucharist was mostly wishing that they were part of the Church.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

For one thing, there is the perspective of Traditionalists on the Latin side who say the the Easterners have legitimate Sacraments but that they are heaping damnation upon themselves by partaking of them. That would be a possibility if they had a legitimate Eucharist. If that were the case, I would hope that they do not have a legitimate Eucharist.

First of all, I can't say I've ever heard of this "traditionalist" point of view. Especially since the Roman Catholic Church's (hsssss, gnashing of teeth) officially stated point of view (since the RCC is centralized in it's ecclesiology) states that the 'other lung of the church', i.e. the Eastern Orthodox, are a valid part of the true church with valid sacraments, albeit in schism.

Further, for a group outside of the Church to have legitimate Sacraments would be highly problematic ecclesiologically as it would divide the Body of Christ and render the unity of the Church redundant. That idea is just a mess and I don't hope for it to be true.

So... what if you have one Orthodox church (A) in communion with church B, but not C, but C is in communion with A... is the Body of Christ whole or separate? I guess it depends on which church you ask.

My point is, you're inserting an accusation that may be a bit harsher than is deserved. The human divisions of the church does not necessarily equal the lack of grace. That would place human decision higher than the graces of God. Same for the 'redundancy' of the sacraments? We're not talking Protestant vs Catholic, we are discussing a Church, with disagreeable theology or not, has ecclesial genealogy to the Apostles.

If we are to accept an Eastern view of Church authority, then assuming the East and West resume communion, does this still leave all previous faithful who died Roman Catholic in a state of sin? Despite their desire and faithfulness to God, because they accepted the IC, purgatory, etc, yet did not have official communion with another church?

I certainly hope that God will have mercy upon those who are outside the Church and that somehow they may eventually be redeemed, but I don't really hope that legitimate Sacraments exist outside the Church.

What I meant when I said that I wish the Romanists had a legitimate Eucharist was mostly wishing that they were part of the Church.

I'm sorry, but your lack of compassion in your desire for authenticity (in kind) is repulsive. Even if such is true, I couldn't hope for the lack of grace on any man, especially for motives that appear self serving.

I was involved with Traditionalist RC's for a while, have read a lot of their books & materials, but never came across the opinion that the Orthodox are "heaping damnation upon themselves" by partaking of their valid sacraments. That's certainly not the official teaching of the RC church (not even pre-Vatican II) AFAIK.

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

I was Greek Catholic but had to attend Roman Catholic worship services as well. It's nice to see a service that isn't gender neutral, short-cutted, that participates in lex orendi lex credendi, is void of Marty Haugen, doesn't have 10 laity handing out wafers and wine, the prayers mean something and aren't watered down. It's nice the prayers include the whole trinity and not just Father...prayer...we ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ amen... sabellianism is gone. The communal aspect is awesome.I was at a Roman Catholic parish for a family member's funeral mass last week.My great uncle went to mass DAILY. the priest has been there for YEARS, and only ONE priest.. the priest admitted in his homily he didn't really know my uncle. Probably sent laity to take him communion in hospital as well, because he said he saw him once or twice in hospital and my uncle was in there so much I think they are renaming the wing after him. Come on, even if you have 800 members you should know the devout man and his wife who show up to daily mass for years and sit up front. No excuse. What don't miss is the fact that the post Vatican 2 church is a failed experiment in liberalism that started in the early 1900's. The other problem is that grew out of the seperation between clergy and laity that was the status quo for the Roman Catholic church for oh 500 600 700 800 years. I guess its hard to fix something that has been broken for centuries. It can be fixed but it has to return to the original deposit of faith, get the laity's hands off the wafer, let the priest teach fire and brimstone and proper Vatican teaching and not go on about how their aunt reminded them of the parable in todays gospel.

I was involved with Traditionalist RC's for a while, have read a lot of their books & materials, but never came across the opinion that the Orthodox are "heaping damnation upon themselves" by partaking of their valid sacraments. That's certainly not the official teaching of the RC church (not even pre-Vatican II) AFAIK.

I don't know what this fellow thought of Orthodox sacraments, but the traditionalist Catholic priest at the parish my wife attended told her that she'd go to hell if she became Orthodox.

I was involved with Traditionalist RC's for a while, have read a lot of their books & materials, but never came across the opinion that the Orthodox are "heaping damnation upon themselves" by partaking of their valid sacraments. That's certainly not the official teaching of the RC church (not even pre-Vatican II) AFAIK.

I don't know what this fellow thought of Orthodox sacraments, but the traditionalist Catholic priest at the parish my wife attended told her that she'd go to hell if she became Orthodox.

Aye, I've heard it from many many many many Roman Catholic ministers. Sticks and stones may break my bones but the Ecumenical Councils will save me.

I spoke with several Catholic priests about my uncertainty over whether I should be Catholic or Orthodox. They encouraged me to explore both and to go where my heart led me. They all affirmed that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are valid expressions of Christian faith with historical continuity from the early Church and that I should go where I felt closest to God.

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.

I think you're referring to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was worded to leave open the possibility that she might not have died, although it is strongly believed by most Catholics that she did. The point of the doctrine is that she went straight to Heaven.

I spoke with several Catholic priests about my uncertainty over whether I should be Catholic or Orthodox. They encouraged me to explore both and to go where my heart led me. They all affirmed that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are valid expressions of Christian faith with historical continuity from the early Church and that I should go where I felt closest to God.

No, they are wrong. You must use your intelligence firstly, then heart! The Third Ecumenical Council banned to include any changes in the Symbol of the Faith. Roman Catholic Church has broken this rule and hasn't the Orthodox faith. Christian Church has NEVER had the Pope as the head of all Church. Only Ecumenical Council is the head and the voice of Christian Catholic Church.(Now it is named the Orthodox Catholic Church and it has seven Ecumenical Councils.) This has always been since the Apostle Council till now.I hope God will lead you to the truth and i will pray for you.

I spoke with several Catholic priests about my uncertainty over whether I should be Catholic or Orthodox. They encouraged me to explore both and to go where my heart led me. They all affirmed that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are valid expressions of Christian faith with historical continuity from the early Church and that I should go where I felt closest to God.

No, they are wrong. You must use your intelligence firstly, then heart! Third Ecumenical Council banned to include any changes in the Symbol of the Faith. Roman Catholic Church has broken this rule and hasn't the Orthodox faith. Christian Church has NEVER had the Pope as the head of all Church. Only Ecumenical Council is the head and the voice of Christian Catholic Church.(Now it is named the Orthodox Catholic Church.) This has always been since the Apostle Council till now.I hope God will lead you to the truth and i will pray for you.

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

I am still in the catechist process. For me, the faith is much more immediate. When I was in a Catholic parish, this is how they dealt with a saint's feast, for instance: "Today is the feast of St. (Name)." And that's it. Sometimes they wouldn't even mention that, even on the feast of an Apostle. Forgive me, but it seemed to be living the faith with much less zeal than we used to in the parish to which I had gone years ago. It added up.

Whereas when I started going to an Orthodox parish and I got the Orthros booklet and the liturgy book, I could read just voluminous poetry about the vivid faith, the deeds of the saints, the way they lived out their beliefs-- the Orthodox talked about these things as if they just happened. I stayed for the services and they were just beautiful. It took me a while to get used to them, but I did. The icons add to this fully 'fleshed out' reminder, that the faith is real, it is not something that you have to do alone. I have plenty of learning and spiritual 'growing up' still to do; but in the Orthodox Church I get the sense that, with help, (God willing) I may be able to do so.

« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 01:28:55 PM by biro »

Logged

He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Only Ecumenical Council is the head and the voice of Christian Catholic Church.(Now it is named the Orthodox Catholic Church and it has seven Ecumenical Councils.) This has always been since the Apostle Council till now.

Exactly. Everyone should just follow the 7 Ecumenical Councils and be happy. Or the 9 Ecumenical Councils. Or 2. Or 3. Or maybe it's 21. Well anyway, the point is that we can be certain that either 2, 3, 7, 9, or 21 Ecumenical Councils provide an infallible and definitive cornerstone for right belief. Very simple, really. Unless you're Protestant, then you could pick and choose which number you like. Those silly Protestants, I'm glad traditional Christians don't argue over things like that!

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

Mary

Yes, im quite sure of it. Church has never made changes in the Creed

Quote

Exactly. Everyone should just follow the 7 Ecumenical Councils and be happy. Or the 9 Ecumenical Councils. Or 2. Or 3. Or maybe it's 21. Well anyway, the point is that we can be certain that either 2, 3, 7, 9, or 21 Ecumenical Councils provide an infallible and definitive cornerstone for right belief. Very simple, really. Unless you're Protestant, then you could pick and choose which number you like. Those silly Protestants, I'm glad traditional Christians don't argue over things like that!

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

So what are you, if you're not an Orthodox and in your words "Christian"?

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

Well then, I guess Met. Hierotheos, Fr. John S. Romanides, the signers of the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), and so forth, are/were not Christians (since they all advocated accepting more than 7 Ecumenical Councils). Also, your argument amounts to "It's 7 because I say so, ignore all other opinions," which I must admit is a very refreshing and persuasive approach. Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

So what are you, if you're not an Orthodox and in your words "Christian"?

Im a member of the Orthodox Catholic Church, its the name of Christian Church now. I dont understand what were you confused about

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

Well then, I guess Met. Hierotheos, Fr. John S. Romanides, the signers of the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), and so forth, are/were not Christians (since they all advocated accepting more than 7 Ecumenical Councils). Also, your argument amounts to "It's 7 because I say so, ignore all other opinions," which I must admit is a very refreshing and persuasive approach. Thanks for clearing this up for me.

I dont pretend on infallibility, maybe my English isn't very well It's 7, because the Church says so.Do you mean Councils of 879-880 and 1341-1351 ? They are legitimate Orthodox councils, but they aren't generally considered as Ecumenicals. Its my mistake,i forgot about them, but its another case, i mean denying legitimate councils and admitting heretic councils

I often felt quite uncomfortable in Orthodoxy. So much of the talk, in sermons and in general parish fellowship, was about how much better Orthodoxy is compared to all other denominations. The anti-Catholic attitudes were intense and disgusting.

I guess this varies from parish to parish. Honestly, in my small Greek mission parish, where my wife and I worship since 2007, I have never, ever heard even one word from a priest about how "better" is the Orthodox faith compared to other. Really, nothing like this at all. And there is never any talk in our parish about how "bad" Roman Catholics are.

Furthermore, I disliked how the parish I attended, and every other parish, was just an ethnic community. I felt out of place and I found it tedious having to explain why I was coming to an Orthodox parish when ethnically I don’t belong there.

Again, depends on the parish. My wife and I are not Greeks, but we never had to explain to anyone in our Greek parish why we were coming. No one ever asked. We have Greeks, half-Greeks (children of mixed marriages), and non-Greeks, and we all get along very well...

Confession is available every day in the Catholic Cathedral and some churches here, and weekly at all other Catholic parishes. In comparison, at my Orthodox parish confession was only available once per year, and it was conducted without any privacy at all…

How strange. That's just wrong, wrong. Confession should be available any time there is a penitent who wishes to confess his sins. And privacy should be absolute. There are no confessionals in Orthodox church buildings, but the priest takes confessions covering the penitent with a piece of special cloth, and you wisper in his ear. No one except God and the priest should hear you.

and most people didn’t even go. When I converted to Orthodoxy I had to make a confession, and some of the ‘cradle’ members of the parish commented that they had never been to confession in their lives.

That's the matter of their consciousness and that should not bother other people. We do not read other people's hearts, only God does. After all, maybe all of them are perfect and sinless. As far as I know, it is one really beautiful Orthodox teaching that I should always consider myself THE MOST sinful and THE LEAST deserving salvation. In this regard, we should only rejoice if our brother and sister says, "I have no sins to confess." Maybe they really do not have them!

The Orthodox Church insists that there is only one way of thinking and worshipping and pursuing a relationship with the Trinity, and anything else is heretical. The Catholic Church is mature enough to appreciate that there are different valid ways to approach God, in terms of our theology and our spirituality. I like this ‘unity in diversity’ that is present in Catholicism. I certainly did not see anything like it in the Orthodox Church.

I don't know. Maybe your exposition to the Orthodox Church was just a bit too short?I am sure there are very different voices in the Orthodox Church as well.

I often felt quite uncomfortable in Orthodoxy. So much of the talk, in sermons and in general parish fellowship, was about how much better Orthodoxy is compared to all other denominations. The anti-Catholic attitudes were intense and disgusting.

I guess this varies from parish to parish. Honestly, in my small Greek mission parish, where my wife and I worship since 2007, I have never, ever heard even one word from a priest about how "better" is the Orthodox faith compared to other. Really, nothing like this at all. And there is never any talk in our parish about how "bad" Roman Catholics are.

I thought that sounded a little strange as well. I regularly attend a heavily convert OCA parish and a heavily ethnic Greek parish and in five years I've never heard a negative word spoken about Catholicism or any other Christian confession for that matter. In fact on several occasions I've heard specifically Catholic saints quoted in homilies.

Furthermore, I disliked how the parish I attended, and every other parish, was just an ethnic community. I felt out of place and I found it tedious having to explain why I was coming to an Orthodox parish when ethnically I don’t belong there.

Again, depends on the parish. My wife and I are not Greeks, but we never had to explain to anyone in our Greek parish why we were coming. No one ever asked. We have Greeks, half-Greeks (children of mixed marriages), and non-Greeks, and we all get along very well...

I'm sure there are parishes like the one Feanor describes but I've never encountered one. I've attended an almost exclusively ethnic Antiochian parish (there were three white guys there, me included), a mostly ethnic Greek parish and a heavily ethnic Russian parish. I've never felt out of place. In fact the people in the ethnic parishes went out of their way to make me feel comfortable.

Confession is available every day in the Catholic Cathedral and some churches here, and weekly at all other Catholic parishes. In comparison, at my Orthodox parish confession was only available once per year, and it was conducted without any privacy at all…

How strange. That's just wrong, wrong. Confession should be available any time there is a penitent who wishes to confess his sins. And privacy should be absolute. There are no confessionals in Orthodox church buildings, but the priest takes confessions covering the penitent with a piece of special cloth, and you wisper in his ear. No one except God and the priest should hear you.

Every priest I know is more than happy to make an appointment for confession almost any day of the week with only you and the priest alone in the nave. When I go to confession it is just as Heorhij describes. No one else can hear what you are saying.

and most people didn’t even go. When I converted to Orthodoxy I had to make a confession, and some of the ‘cradle’ members of the parish commented that they had never been to confession in their lives.

That's the matter of their consciousness and that should not bother other people. We do not read other people's hearts, only God does. After all, maybe all of them are perfect and sinless. As far as I know, it is one really beautiful Orthodox teaching that I should always consider myself THE MOST sinful and THE LEAST deserving salvation. In this regard, we should only rejoice if our brother and sister says, "I have no sins to confess." Maybe they really do not have them!

I agree. Worrying about how often other people go to confession is very spiritually unhealthy. As St Theophan says, "study yourself and your own sins." How often others confess is between themselves, God and their spiritual fathers. It's absolutely none of your concern.

I believe Orthodoxy to be a beautiful, reverent and spiritually-fulfilling member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I don’t have anything against Orthodoxy or Orthodox people, and I admire and adore its liturgical and spiritual traditions.

I “went home to Rome” because that was where I felt more comfortable and where I could be closer to God. In Orthodoxy I felt trapped, strangled and like a stranger. I felt out of place, constantly uncomfortable, and awkward. I couldn’t receive the nourishment which I need, sacramentally or pastorally. I went ‘home’ to Catholicism because it really feels like ‘home,’ and the practices of the Catholic Church happen to suit my spiritual needs far better.

I am happy being home in the Catholic Church. I can once again share my religious and spiritual life with my family and friends. Last night my family and I stayed up late together to watch the canonization of St Mary of the Cross, Australia’s first saint, who was an inspirational woman to all of us. It felt good to be able to share my faith with my family, even in such a small way as that. When I was Orthodox I felt like I had betrayed my own heritage. My grandfathers all fought for this country, and they attended daily Mass and prayed daily rosaries. My grandmother is a devout Catholic, and my sister is becoming more devout and soon wants to undergo her confirmation. I am thrilled that finally I have made peace with my own religious tradition.

When I first discovered Orthodoxy, I ‘bought’ the story hook, line and sinker: “The Catholics seperated themselves from the True Church by inserting their heretical doctrines into the faith, now they have no valid sacraments and their faith is defficient.” I actually believed it, and I was drawn towards the beautiful traditions of Orthodox liturgical and spiritual life. However, as time went on I began to see great signs of holiness and sanctification in other traditions, and I realised that despite the various doctrinal and political schisms which have beset the history of Christianity, the Holy Spirit is not denied or absent from any church. That is what I believe. I know in my heart that the Catholic Church is a completely valid Church with valid Eucharist, and I believe in the importance of Petrine Primacy. However, I wanted to stay with Orthodoxy, because I had fallen in love with its traditions and its mystical spirituality. However, after a while I began to ache for home, I missed being able to share my faith with my family and friends. I was dreading Christmas, when my family would go together to the Catholic Cathedral and I would have to go seperately to an Orthodox Liturgy in Greek, Russian or Arabic, on my own, a stranger in a church full of families celebrating together. That didn’t make me feel happy, it made me feel lonely and isolated.

I still love Orthodoxy, but I also love my own tradition, the Catholic faith, and I am grateful to be at home once again. I now feel far closer to God than I ever have in my life in many ways, and I am growing spiritually, slowly making progress in my battle against sin. Daily Eucharist has helped me in so many ways, amongst many other aspects of Catholic life which have helped me to grow.

Who knows. Perhaps I might return to Orthodoxy some day. Maybe in a year, maybe in ten years. Maybe never. I am not bitter about Orthodoxy and I have great respect for the EO Church in many ways. It simply wasn't working for me - I was unhappy and isolated. That was not spiritually healthy for me.

I hope that my Orthodox brothers and sisters can understand and respect this, even if they do not agree.

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

I'm sorry, but could you clarify the changes in the Symbol of the Faith after this time which you are referring to?

Here is what we have from Ephesus:

Quote

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. 2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised. 3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.

There was no mention at all of the text from the first Council of Constantinople so we need to consider the following and begin to moderate our assertions about this Creed our ours and how it must never be changed.

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have endorsed the faith of Nicaea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted, an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called Constantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene creed.

It was J. Lebon, followed by J. N. D. Kelly and A. M. Ritter, who worked at the solution of this problem. Lebon said that the Nicene creed, especially since it was adapted to use at baptism, had taken on a number of forms. It was one of these which was endorsed at the council of Constantinople and developed by additions concerning the holy Spirit. All the forms, altered to some extent or other, were described by a common title as "the Nicene faith". Then the council of Chalcedon mentioned the council of Constantinople as the immediate source of one of them, marked it out by a special name "the faith of the 150 fathers", which from that time onwards became its widely known title, and quoted it alongside the original simple form of the Nicene creed. The Greek text of the Constantinopolitan creed, which is printed below, is taken from the acts of the council of Chalcedon.

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

So what are you, if you're not an Orthodox and in your words "Christian"?

Indeed, those outside the Church are not Christian in the same sense that those in the Church are.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

I'm sorry, but could you clarify the changes in the Symbol of the Faith after this time which you are referring to?

Here is what we have from Ephesus:

Quote

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. 2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised. 3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.

There was no mention at all of the text from the first Council of Constantinople so we need to consider the following and begin to moderate our assertions about this Creed our ours and how it must never be changed.

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have endorsed the faith of Nicaea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted, an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called Constantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene creed.

It was J. Lebon, followed by J. N. D. Kelly and A. M. Ritter, who worked at the solution of this problem. Lebon said that the Nicene creed, especially since it was adapted to use at baptism, had taken on a number of forms. It was one of these which was endorsed at the council of Constantinople and developed by additions concerning the holy Spirit. All the forms, altered to some extent or other, were described by a common title as "the Nicene faith". Then the council of Chalcedon mentioned the council of Constantinople as the immediate source of one of them, marked it out by a special name "the faith of the 150 fathers", which from that time onwards became its widely known title, and quoted it alongside the original simple form of the Nicene creed. The Greek text of the Constantinopolitan creed, which is printed below, is taken from the acts of the council of Chalcedon.

Mary, the Church more universally affirmed the Creed of Constantinople shortly thereafter and after that there was certainty in its content with no modification until the filioque.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com